• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Joe the Plumber is a distraction

Roadtoad

Bufo Caminus Inedibilis
Joined
Nov 27, 2002
Messages
15,468
Location
Citrus Heights, CA
Sorry, but all that I heard about "Joe the Plumber" is nothing more than a distraction from the real issues which surround this campaign.

I realize this particular election is one of the bloodier ones, but it's also one of the most blood-less campaigns I have seen in years. This one has as much passion as someone reciting the Periodic Table, (and, no, I'm not referring to Tom Lehrer.) It's all come down to who's going to milk the treasury for the next four to eight years.

Frankly, the lack of solid reporting on the part of the media, the bias from both Fox and CNN, not to mention the major broadcast networks, as well as the print media, has been disgraceful. I defy you to clearly state which candidate has the better economic plan, based on an objective analysis. Having read them both, the one thing I can see is that either way, we're going to wind up with our budget further out of whack, and the only winners will be the allies of whoever wins the White House.

Yes, I know, that's the way it's always been. Sorry, but that no longer cuts it. When we have troops in harm's way, (and yes, due to the dishonesty and incompetence of our current President), when we have homes being repossessed at an alarming rate, when it looks like more and more of our jobs are being shipped overseas, neither candidate looks like he's got much to offer. If anything, I'd just as soon write in Bill Bradley or Nancy Kassebaum, and be done with it.

"Joe the Plumber" brought up some valid points, some of which will affect me personally as I'm looking for financing to buy a truck of my own. As I've said before, my goal is a small fleet which I can lease out. At that point, had things gone as they should have, I could add one or two rigs a year, sell off one per year, and expand until I had a well established trucking company, working perhaps the western region of the US. In order to do that, I have to be able to hang onto the capital I earn (note that word "earn"), and be able to use it as I see fit.

However, neither McCain or Obama seems intent on letting me do that. Quite the opposite: McCain wants it early, before it hits my pocket, and Obama wants it the minute it hits my bank account. (Biden, for his part, is telling me that higher taxes are "patriotic," further evidence that not only is he a dishonest, lying pr***, who plagiarizes speeches when he lacks creativity of his own, but considering he can't figure out that the Vice President of the US is President of the Senate, even after his years in service there, demonstrates why he shouldn't even be in political office in the first place.) Either way, the goal seems to be keeping someone like me out of the marketplace.

It's dishonest of the media to focus on "Joe the Plumber." It's a game. The further "debunking" of this man by the likes of Katie Couric demonstrates why it's foolish to listen to the mainstream media, and even worse to listen to the likes of Rush Limbaugh and Al Franken. None of them work in the real world, and if I had half a chance, I'd like nothing more than to knock the teeth out of Bill Kristol's mouth, and Chris Matthews', too, while I'm at it.

I'm sitting here at home, looking for some way to afford to buy that first rig, even as I'm at war with my own body, trying to get my blood sugar down to a legal level. Neither McCain's health care proposals, or Obama's, show any real promise, and further demonstrate that neither one has ever had to deal with the realities the rest of us who have no health insurance face. (Just as a side note: I don't understand how a trucking company can operate without health insurance for its drivers, particularly when you consider that a driver who's not healthy loses his medical card, and, with that, his license.) Frankly, the arrogance of these two men and their running mates is reason enough to vote against the both of them. Neither one has ever tried to start an actual business, had to make a payroll, or even attempted to budget for expansion and maintenance. (An interesting thing I learned about trucking: You have to constantly be expanding and upgrading your equipment just to break even. Sounds like most businesses I've been looking at.)

Add to this Obama's plans for "spreading the wealth," (I'd like to have a piece of the pie, Barack. That's why I'm starting a business, so I can EARN it, D***weed!), and McCain's ignorance of the struggles of the middle and lower classes, (Yo, John: Did it occur to you that a TAX CREDIT for health insurance is a STUPID idea when you don't have money for health care in the first place, and taxing health coverage is monumentally IDIOTIC?), and I have yet to see why either one is a candidate for office.

And, sorry, but rather than feeling encouraged by Colin Powell's endorsement of Obama, I'm disappointed. It has diminished Secretary Powell's stature in my book.
 
Frankly, the lack of solid reporting on the part of the media, the bias from both Fox and CNN, not to mention the major broadcast networks, as well as the print media, has been disgraceful. I defy you to clearly state which candidate has the better economic plan, based on an objective analysis.

Technicaly obama since it is less hard to cancel spending you haven't done yet than tax cuts you haven't done yet.

The current economic conditions make detailed planning unrealistic. Really boils down to which candidate you think can react faster to whatever has gone wrong this week.

Yes, I know, that's the way it's always been. Sorry, but that no longer cuts it. When we have troops in harm's way, (and yes, due to the dishonesty and incompetence of our current President), when we have homes being repossessed at an alarming rate, when it looks like more and more of our jobs are being shipped overseas, neither candidate looks like he's got much to offer. If anything, I'd just as soon write in Bill Bradley or Nancy Kassebaum, and be done with it.

Obama offers bringing some of the troops home and trying to use the bail out cash to influnce banks to keep people in their homes. McCain offers something people are more likely to accept as victory and a tax cut that might make big companies more interested in makeing money.

"Joe the Plumber" brought up some valid points,

"Sorry, but all that I heard about "Joe the Plumber" is nothing more than a distraction from the real issues which surround this campaign."


Please you can hold one position or the other but not both.

some of which will affect me personally as I'm looking for financing to buy a truck of my own. As I've said before, my goal is a small fleet which I can lease out. At that point, had things gone as they should have, I could add one or two rigs a year, sell off one per year, and expand until I had a well established trucking company, working perhaps the western region of the US. In order to do that, I have to be able to hang onto the capital I earn (note that word "earn"), and be able to use it as I see fit.

You don't earn it the company does. Obama taxes would be unlikely to see it.

However, neither McCain or Obama seems intent on letting me do that. Quite the opposite: McCain wants it early, before it hits my pocket, and Obama wants it the minute it hits my bank account.

How many startup trucking companies have $250K hitting the owners bank account (not the companies bank account the owners)?

(Biden, for his part, is telling me that higher taxes are "patriotic," further evidence that not only is he a dishonest, lying pr***, who plagiarizes speeches when he lacks creativity of his own, but considering he can't figure out that the Vice President of the US is President of the Senate, even after his years in service there, demonstrates why he shouldn't even be in political office in the first place.)

Higher taxes may well be patriotic if you belive patriotism means doing things for your country. Infrastructure and armies cost money. Very few countries don't try and have at least one of the two.

I suspect he has a very good idea what the roll of the Vice President. Titles don't always mean as much as you think (UK takes this to an extreme formaly Gordon Brown is First Lord of the Treasury in reality the Treasury is run by Second Lord of the Treasury/Chancellor of the Exchequer (who isn't the Lord Chancellor) ).

Either way, the goal seems to be keeping someone like me out of the marketplace.

No both would like to see more startups. Obama probably more so but that is mostly because McCains interests are in areas other than the economy.

Frankly, the arrogance of these two men and their running mates is reason enough to vote against the both of them. Neither one has ever tried to start an actual business, had to make a payroll, or even attempted to budget for expansion and maintenance.

And you have never tried to run a country and yet you think you should have the right to vote.

Add to this Obama's plans for "spreading the wealth," (I'd like to have a piece of the pie, Barack. That's why I'm starting a business, so I can EARN it, D***weed!)

You are assumeing that spreading wealth is a zero sum game. This does not have to be the case.
 
I defy you to clearly state which candidate has the better economic plan, based on an objective analysis.
That's an awfully tall order. I consider myself more knowledgeable about economics than the average person yet I have barely a clue what the best plan is, much less state so clearly based on objective analysis. So all I have to fall back on is my sense that trickle-down hasn't worked and my sense of what's fair.

However, neither McCain or Obama seems intent on letting me do that. Quite the opposite: McCain wants it early, before it hits my pocket, and Obama wants it the minute it hits my bank account.
I don't know how to interpret this other than you don't like paying taxes, seeing as both candidates have promised to lower your taxes.

(Because trickle-down seems to me not to have worked, I prefer the tax plan that gives a break to the middle class.)

Biden, for his part, is telling me that higher taxes are "patriotic," further evidence that not only is he a dishonest, lying pr***, who plagiarizes speeches
I don't get this vitriolic non-sequitur at all. You are free to disagree with Biden of course, but why is his statement dishonest?

considering he [Biden] can't figure out that the Vice President of the US is President of the Senate, even after his years in service there
You're taking a snippet out of context and playing gotcha.

I'd like nothing more than to knock the teeth out of Bill Kristol's mouth, and Chris Matthews', too, while I'm at it.
You're not exactly elevating the dialog with this scatter shot ranting. (I do appreciate your frustration though. I'm often exasperated by politicians and pundits.)

neither one has ever had to deal with the realities the rest of us who have no health insurance face.
What does this mean? They are both financially privileged? So what.

Add to this Obama's plans for "spreading the wealth," (I'd like to have a piece of the pie, Barack. That's why I'm starting a business, so I can EARN it, D***weed!)
We've had a progressive tax system for a long time now -- this is just another gotcha via snippet.

Though if you favor a flat tax, I can see why you'd be opposed to most politicians. Including Bradley and Kassebaum.
 
Last edited:
Thanks for the response, Geni. Hope you don't mind a shotgun response, but there's a lot in your post to go over...

I didn't think I was trying to play both sides of the fence. One can bring up good points in an argument, but that doesn't mean that a person who presents those arguments can't wind up being a distraction in that debate. The unfortunate reality is that "Joe" and the press which has surrounded him have become fodder for the tabloid side of matters.

As to startups, sure, you can start a business. I'm trying to figure out how the hell I can sustain it. You need customers, and right now, with what I'm seeing, I don't see how that's going to happen.

Good point about Biden, BTW. Still, in the debate, you would have expected him to bring up his role as President of the Senate, particularly given who he was debating against. Ask yourself: just how effective a leader would Palin be in that role? I don't think she'd be very good at all, and might, in fact, have a very negative effect, given her political standing.

How many trucking owners start out with $250,000? More than you realize, and in part, because they manage to sock away far more money than they spend. Most of the outfits I know of have started off run by a single guy, who pretty much lived in his rig. No wife, no kids, and no house to pay for. I'm the exact opposite, which leaves a lot of O&Os shaking their heads when I talk about what I'd like to do. (Most of them are single. Care to guess why?)

True, the company would get taxed, but that cuts into profits, which is what you use to buy the next Kenworth. I'm probably missing something in this. If you could clarify, please.

Hell, I want the troops home. Unfortunately, the best way to get them home is for Iraq to pick up the slack for its own defense, and for the most part, that doesn't seem to be happening. (I say "seem" for a reason.) Much of what's happening within the Iraqi military is a lot infighting, based on the Sunni-Shia division, and that happened back when Mohammed died. This isn't going to go away any time soon.

One of the biggest mistakes we made going in was based on our lack of understanding (or was that intentional stupidity?) regarding Islam and its multiple divisions, between Sunni/Shia/Druze/etc., and our leader's mistaken belief that we could expect and American style democracy in a nation where religious divisions run long and deep. Ain't gonna happen, at least not in this century. My personal conviction is that some people hold negotiations to establish boundaries, specifically so the enemy learns just how to piss you off, (which they do with apalling regularity.)

More to follow. I'm looking forward to your response.
 
Varwoche, yes, I'm in favor of a flat tax. I don't see the current system as being either fair or workable. I spend over $200 a year getting my taxes done. Once I buy a truck, that's could very well go to five times that, or more. For what? Just so some dude with a bad comb-over can poke his nose into what's not his business? (Up to a point, of course. Sorry; I can't see writing off a Bentley, or a luxury trip to the Bahamas.)

Sorry, I'm not into "gotcha," but I am damned frustrated with the attitudes of our political leaders. This is a position of trust, yet you'd think they were approaching it as an annointing. I don't agree with Bradley or Kassebaum on a number of points, but both had lengthy careers in the Senate, and at the very least, seem to approach the duties of their offices with a degree of respect.

I'm still trying to make heads or tails of the tax proposals put forth. I can't stand what McCain's trying to offer; After our little $700 billion Valentine to the financial services industry, specifically for fleecing the public, (and with further evidence coming out that Freddie Mac hired a conservative outfit to fight regulations that would have prevented this whole mess), I don't see how the hell he can justify this. OTOH, Obama, once you've earned your green, is determined to take it away from you. Why?

I'll be the first to admit, I don't have all the answers. But I'm not getting them from the people who ought to be providing them. Either cough 'em up, or STFU*.
 
I agree about Joe. Instead of focusing on the questions posed, the media seems to be focusing on Joe the man. He should have been taken at his word and his question treated as a hypothetical for the purposes of his situation applies to more than him.

One of the biggest mistakes we made going in was based on our lack of understanding (or was that intentional stupidity?) regarding Islam and its multiple divisions, between Sunni/Shia/Druze/etc., and our leader's mistaken belief that we could expect and American style democracy in a nation where religious divisions run long and deep. Ain't gonna happen, at least not in this century. My personal conviction is that some people hold negotiations to establish boundaries, specifically so the enemy learns just how to piss you off, (which they do with apalling regularity.)

More to follow. I'm looking forward to your response.

I think the biggest mistake was thinking there would be more support from the people than there was. I remember reading that somewhere they anticipated the Shia population would be more supportive. We ****ed them in 1992, I don't think they forgot that.
 
T
As to startups, sure, you can start a business. I'm trying to figure out how the hell I can sustain it. You need customers, and right now, with what I'm seeing, I don't see how that's going to happen.

It this point it seems unlikely that anyone in any goverment can manage to turn the economy around in the short term.

Good point about Biden, BTW. Still, in the debate, you would have expected him to bring up his role as President of the Senate, particularly given who he was debating against. Ask yourself: just how effective a leader would Palin be in that role?

Fine since all the actual work consistents of casting decideing votes (whichever way McCain wants) and letting the Acting President pro tempore actualy do the presideing over the sentate. To put it another way in the case of a McCain victory convention would have it that obama is marginaly more likey to preside over the sentate than Palin (in reality it would for the most part be done by the new intake since it seems likely there will be a fair bit of that).

How many trucking owners start out with $250,000? More than you realize, and in part, because they manage to sock away far more money than they spend. Most of the outfits I know of have started off run by a single guy, who pretty much lived in his rig. No wife, no kids, and no house to pay for. I'm the exact opposite, which leaves a lot of O&Os shaking their heads when I talk about what I'd like to do. (Most of them are single. Care to guess why?)

Not with $250K but makeing a personal income of $250K per year? Why pay yourself 250K when you can pay yourself say $230K and employ yourself a better trucker?

True, the company would get taxed, but that cuts into profits, which is what you use to buy the next Kenworth. I'm probably missing something in this. If you could clarify, please.

Obama's taxes require that the person have an income of over $250K. If you are running a startup and want it to be sucessful you are likely to pay yourself rather less than $250k (with the posible exception of some dot com startups) and instead invest the money in growing the business.

Hell, I want the troops home. Unfortunately, the best way to get them home is for Iraq to pick up the slack for its own defense, and for the most part, that doesn't seem to be happening. (I say "seem" for a reason.) Much of what's happening within the Iraqi military is a lot infighting, based on the Sunni-Shia division, and that happened back when Mohammed died. This isn't going to go away any time soon.

Well no. Back when iraq was invented the lack of unity was built in. That was how things were done in those days.

One of the biggest mistakes we made going in was based on our lack of understanding (or was that intentional stupidity?) regarding Islam and its multiple divisions, between Sunni/Shia/Druze/etc., and our leader's mistaken belief that we could expect and American style democracy in a nation where religious divisions run long and deep. Ain't gonna happen, at least not in this century. My personal conviction is that some people hold negotiations to establish boundaries, specifically so the enemy learns just how to piss you off, (which they do with apalling regularity.)

So the question is do you stick with indefinet deployment or patch the place together well enough that it won't fall apart for at least 5 mins then get out. McCain seems to prefer the former Obama probably tends towards the latter.
 
I agree about Joe. Instead of focusing on the questions posed, the media seems to be focusing on Joe the man. He should have been taken at his word and his question treated as a hypothetical for the purposes of his situation applies to more than him.

Problem is that if you pose his question as a hypothical you get slammed for being out of touch (how many plumbers actualy rack up $250K a year?). In effect you need joe the plumber as a human shield in order to avoid that. The media tends to take a dirrect aproach to human shields.
 
Problem is that if you pose his question as a hypothical you get slammed for being out of touch (how many plumbers actualy rack up $250K a year?). In effect you need joe the plumber as a human shield in order to avoid that. The media tends to take a dirrect aproach to human shields.

I don't mean that they should pose the question as a hypothetical. Joe asked, they answered, which was great. Then the media comes along as says "hey, Joe doesn't have a license! His question was fraud!" I mean, come on.
 
So the question is do you stick with indefinite deployment or patch the place together well enough that it won't fall apart for at least 5 mins then get out.

Good luck with that. As you said, when Iraq was first created, the goal was to make sure it stayed divided within its borders. Made it easier for the colonists to control the whole rotting mess within.

I think in a lot of ways, we're on the same page. (Though, no, you wouldn't pay a driver $20,000 a year. You wouldn't have too many drivers in the end.) Part of the problem I'm seeing is payroll taxes, and how under both, they're looking as though they'll go up. If I'm looking at putting together a fleet of about 25 trucks, running under another company, or even under our own banner, this means I've got to pay for 25 drivers, at least, (not including what I'd do for teams), plus the Permit Princess in the office for our registration, permits, fuel tax documentation, DOT material, our dispatcher(s), safety director, and at least one mechanic. Everything I'm seeing being proposed seems to favor folks like Schneider National, Swift, CR England, and other majors, not the smaller guys like me who want in on the expanding action, (though the expansion is more towards imports being moved inland, generally in containers from the ports.)
 
I don't mean that they should pose the question as a hypothetical. Joe asked, they answered, which was great. Then the media comes along as says "hey, Joe doesn't have a license! His question was fraud!" I mean, come on.

Touche, sir.

Frankly, this hits on another part of this: Is McCain so out of touch that his contact with Joe was a genuine revelation to him?
 
Varwoche, yes, I'm in favor of a flat tax. I don't see the current system as being either fair or workable. I spend over $200 a year getting my taxes done.
Ouch, this hits a sore spot. I owned and operated a small (software) business for some 15 years. (Still do, except now it's really small -- just me.) The complexity of the tax system is maddening, and that I need to pay someone to prepare my taxes really bugs me. My first ever $ contribution to a presidential candidate was to Jerry Brown (v Clinton in '92 primary) who was advocating flat tax and eliminating most deductions.

Once I buy a truck...
This introduces an angle I hadn't considered: RT Trucking is making over 250k per year but can avoid the >250k tax hit by distributing profits to owners. (And if those owners make over 250k, tough titty I say. ;)) But now RT wants to expand, but can't afford to buy a new truck AND pay the income tax. Do I have this right?
 
Last edited:
I don't mean that they should pose the question as a hypothetical.

"his question treated as a hypothetical"
Okey lets say McCain treats the question as hypothetical

McCain:But what about Joe Sixpack* who earns $250K?
Obama:Under my tax proposals 95% of working americans...

But the headline writers have stopped listening. "McCain thinks joe sixpack earns $250K" "McCain just wants a little love for high earners"

*Or whatever the generic name for blue collar worker is this week

But joe plumber is a real person. By useing him as a shield McCain can make his point without takeing damage. Unfortunetly for McCain it turns out that Joe Plumber as a potential $250K earner was as fictional as the hypothetical example.

Joe asked, they answered, which was great. Then the media comes along as says "hey, Joe doesn't have a license! His question was fraud!" I mean, come on.

You missed a step. Joe asked, obama answered. McCain tries to use Joe as a human shield during the debate (or a weapon it depends on your persepective). The media reacts in a fairly predictable manner.
 
Good luck with that. As you said, when Iraq was first created, the goal was to make sure it stayed divided within its borders. Made it easier for the colonists to control the whole rotting mess within.

Sure but it was peaceful from time to time so it appears it is posible to stablise the place if you really have to.

I think in a lot of ways, we're on the same page. (Though, no, you wouldn't pay a driver $20,000 a year. You wouldn't have too many drivers in the end. Part of the problem I'm seeing is payroll taxes, and how under both, they're looking as though they'll go up. If I'm looking at putting together a fleet of about 25 trucks, running under another company, or even under our own banner, this means I've got to pay for 25 drivers, at least, (not including what I'd do for teams), plus the Permit Princess in the office for our registration, permits, fuel tax documentation, DOT material, our dispatcher(s), safety director, and at least one mechanic.

No the company has to pay for all that. It would technicaly be posible (although probably somewhat inavisable) to run a company with a multi billion dollar turnover and still only get paid $1 a year.

Obama's tax plans shouldn't impact that one way or the other (technicanly emplyees would be paying less tax but I doubt it would be significant). McCain's I haven't looked at much because they are unaffordable enough that I doubt they are all going to happen in full.
 
This introduces an angle I hadn't considered: RT Trucking is making over 250k per year but can avoid the >250k tax hit by distributing profits to owners. (And if those owners make over 250k, tough titty I say. ;)) But now RT wants to expand, but can't afford to buy a new truck AND pay the income tax. Do I have this right?

I would expect Cost comes out of companies earnings that year (depending on how you do depreciation) which knocks them below 250K so no problem.
 
I would expect Cost comes out of companies earnings that year (depending on how you do depreciation) which knocks them below 250K so no problem.
Hmm. Can the outlay be costed? Are such outlays treated as capital expenditures and depreciated long-term only because it's advantageous tax-wise? Rings a bell.
 
Hmmm. Methinks we need to exchange phone #s for some serious conversation regarding running a business. I have got more questions on that than I do answers.

Yes, capital outlay for a truck, I would think, would be called a capital expenditure. It's equipment, but with the current discussion regarding cutting tax loopholes...

You gotta wonder who's running this asylum.
 
Hmm. Can the outlay be costed? Are such outlays treated as capital expenditures and depreciated long-term only because it's advantageous tax-wise? Rings a bell.

No idea. Not my tax system apart from anything else. This is I think where acountants tend to get involved.
 
That's part of my problem. It seems the only people who benefit from the current tax structure are the accountants and the attorneys.
 

Back
Top Bottom